Not to what Jon? Want to try one is what I imagine you are saying...but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Jon, do you know the aprox. price of the 2Stone unit displayed in your pic? Thanks!

Exactly, BIG swing in persuasion given the much cheaper price. Would also like to see and feel them side by side to see if the if they have the same grade material as far weight, SS on not or coated, gas parts as sturdy as the other.....Hard to see thru a pic, like to give a little lift and shake thing, you know

jon

« Last Edit: June 14, 2013, 10:49:49 PM by Jackitup »

Logged

“The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.” -Mark Twain

Just curious as to what the members think...Is the Blackstone oven a blatant rip off of the 2stone oven or is it simply another version of the same oven? I would love to hear your opinions.

In the end it all comes down to patents right? I mean if you don't have something proprietary you better do it much cheaper or better than anyone else. In this case the blackstone is doing it for about 1/5 the price. So if blackstone isn't infringing on patents, and if the 2stone can't offer $1400 worth of reasons for people to choose that unit instead, then they should go out of business, upgrade their product, or lower their price. To me that is just markets in action.

I mean someone at all levels must think their idea is original and no one should copy it. The first guy who made pizza must be pissed off at this website.

And of course I defend blackstone since I purchased one lol.

Logged

scott123

As Craig pointed out, I've never litigated a patent infringement case. I have watched the patent wars in the technology realm very closely, though, and, from what I've seen, Apple, a company that could very well be the most litigious company in history, has been able to win a considerable number cases where I (and many others) thought the competitor's product was pretty unique. Patent law has worked stunningly in Apple's interests and allowed them to, imo, bully most of their competitors in court.

I don't know this for certain, but the idealist in me would truly like to believe that if patent law can aggressively protect Apple's inventions, it can also protect a smaller company like 2stone- that when presented with the patent, any judge will apply some common sense, see that the technology of these ovens is identical, and award 2stone damages. Regardless of how little of a fan I am of 2stone, it would deeply sadden me if the patent system was only effective for huge companies like Apple and not effective for the little guy.

The second stone ceiling, the rotating hearth and the side gas burner all provide improved thermodynamics over any previous oven and are the foundation of what makes this invention unique. By mirroring these features precisely, there's no doubt in my mind that the blackstone is a blatant ripoff.

The fact that it is a ripoff doesn't mean much to us, though. There's a moral component to purchasing a product based on stolen ideas, but you can't ignore who the ideas are being stolen from and their business history. I've long held the belief that Willard's prices are obscenely high. If 2stone is willing to, imo, cross a moral line by charging $2K for what is basically a $600 oven, then I, as a customer, feel justified in purchasing a cheap knockoff that most likely violates the patent- assuming, of course, that the knockoff can give me comparable results and build quality. If I felt that 2stone was charging people an honest price for their wares, then I might be a lot more critical of blackstone, but I've long held the belief that just because you can charge a particular price for a product, doesn't mean that you should, and that companies have a moral obligation not to heinously overcharge their customers.

So, yes, definitely a ripoff, but that's something for the courts to ultimately decide, and doesn't have a lot of bearing on the forum's use of the oven.

Well said Scott. At the end of the day, most of us are smart shoppers especially with the current economy. We will make purchases based on perceived value, quality, need, affordability, etc. Should members not purchase the blackstone oven because it is clearly a knock off? Does it reflect anything about one's morals or ethics? And just like my BGE example, is the 2stone oven truely unique and innovative? Where did the inspiration for it come from? Were any of the ideas borrowed in part or whole from previously existing ovens?

If you look around at the millions of products available, where there are 2 or more brands or types of products, someone is copying, borrowing, or stealing from a competitor. Food for thought. Our lives are filled with copies of copies of the original. Do we only buy Levi's because they were the orignal denim blue jeans? Do we lack integrity if we purchase wranglers because they are cheaper? And if we don't see the difference with blue jeans, then how is purchasing a blackstone oven instead of a 2stone any different in principle or morals? Or are we talking about apples and oranges here?

Jeff good point about pizza. So are all the different styles of pizza ripoffs of NP pizza just bc NP was first? Is it immoral to clone restaurant pizzas as long as we aren't profiting off of it? And what about my own pizzas that are a culmination of knowledge learned from others? Do I rip them off when I don't give them credit on the forum?

Does anyone even know if Willard has a patent? And if he has a patent, does anyone know what the claims of the patent cover, that is, whether the patent is broad or narrow in scope? And if he has a patent, does anyone know if he has asserted it against anyone? Without answers to these questions, this discussion is pointless. Willard has a patent attorney who presumably is looking out for Willard's interests and most likely already has a pretty good idea of the merit of any patent Willard has and the likelihood of success in any litigation. There is also the matter of litigation costs. People get patents all of the time only to discover that they don't have the resources to cover litigation costs if the matter reaches that stage. The guy on the other side might be a large company with deep pockets and who can afford to hire the biggest and best litigation firms.

Peter

Logged

scott123

Peter, perhaps I'm reading something into your comment that isn't there, but it seems like you're echoing the occasionally expressed sentiment that only patent lawyers can discuss patents and potential patent violations. If that's what you're saying, then I disagree strongly.

Simply put, patent law is a system for protecting innovative ideas from theft. I don't have to be a patent lawyer to understand that. If someone incorporates another inventor's ideas into their invention and the ideas haven't been patented, then that's not theft. On the other hand, if the ideas have been patented, then there's liability. The patent defines ownership of the innovation.

When I say that I believe Blackstone is violating 2stone's patent (found here, btw), it's just another way of saying that Blackstone is stealing Willard's ideas. No one here has to be a patent lawyer to see the obviousness of the theft involved. That idea theft is integral to this discussion, and, while, as I said, I don't think it should necessarily prevent anyone from purchasing this device, it should be something that prospective customers should be aware of. For instance, if a company is willing to steal ideas, then they might be willing to cut corners on build quality as well. So far, this oven seems to be hitting the temps that most members are looking for, but the question of build quality as it relates to longevity still stands.

As far as Willard's present and future legal actions... I don't have a crystal ball, and the vast majority of members here will not be impacted whatever he chooses to do, but there is at least one member here who's future relies a great deal on Willard's level of litigiousness- Bert. While Bert has taken comments relating to potential patent violation to heart and worked on making his device more unique, I think he understands the potential legal threat that Willard represents.

There's a lot we don't know about Willard and his past actions and intentions, but his lack of visible action tells us quite a bit. With the sheer number of companies that are mimicking his devices, one would think that, if he had taken action against one of them, he would have done so in a very public manner as to dissuade the other imitators. The fact that, so far, he's taken no visible action against a carbon copy of his 2stone inferno bodes very well, imo, for Bert, whose device, as it stands, is a bit 2stone-ish, but certainly not a mirror image.

So, for prospective and current customers of Blackstone and Bert (and those pulling for Bert), along with those tracking the progress of 2stone's many imitators, patent violation discussion and conjecture related to Willard's future actions is anything but pointless.

Does anyone else agree this forum should get back to discussing how well the Blackstone cooks pizzas? There have been nearly 3 pages discussing patents and possible litigations....I thought this forum was supposed to be about pizza equipment and cooking techniques. Just food for thought.... maybe I'm way off base.

scott123

Does anyone else agree this forum should get back to discussing how well the Blackstone cooks pizzas?

No one's preventing that. As Jro bakes pizzas and posts his results, the discussion has and will continue, and, as the members who recently purchased this oven start in with bakes of their own, the discussion will only intensify further.

Debating the merits of a company that makes pizza ovens is still VERY much about pizza.

Thank you for citing Willard's patent. However, with all due respect, except for acknowledging that Willard has a patent, I stand by my previous remarks. While it might be interesting, and even fun for some, to speculate on what role Willard's patent plays in the matters being discussed in this thread, only Willard, and presumably his attorneys, know what is going on with the patent and what role it will play in his future plans, if any. And if I were Willard's attorney, I would instruct him not to utter a single peep about the patent--to anyone, and certainly not on an open public forum like this one. Willard is under no duty or obligation to speak so no one should take his silence as an indication or admission of anything.

@etout: You are fine with your remarks and I agree that it is time to get back to the less arcane aspects of the two ovens. However, given that several members perceive many similarities between the two ovens, and given the significant differences in prices, it would be entirely natural for people to wonder how really close the two ovens are since the answer to that question might help them decide whether to buy the cheaper oven. Examining Willard's patent is a back door approach to trying to answer that question.

I agree that discussing the merits of the 2 devices is fine for this thread because no one has any pizzas post. I'm sure when someone has new pizzas to post they will just jump right in and do so.

If anyone is interested, not sure if anyone would take the time. But I thought I'd share anyway. Here is a a super interesting case study I did in school on patent infringement that is prepared by the Harvard Business program. This is about the creators of home fire escapes and their battle with big business. It tells the sad truth of what big businesses can do to the little guys.

When I say that I believe Blackstone is violating 2stone's patent (found here, btw), it's just another way of saying that Blackstone is stealing Willard's ideas. No one here has to be a patent lawyer to see the obviousness of the theft involved.

You have the right to your opinion of course, but it’s bordering on irresponsible to say things like this. They are only “stealing Willard’s ideas” if there is infringement. It’s not obvious that there is infringement. It rarely is. Just because two things look very similar doesn’t not automatically mean infringement. I’m not a patent lawyer either - notwithstanding, IMO, Willard’s independent claims are relatively narrow, and I don’t see obvious infringement. Where do you see the “obvious theft?”

“A high temperature bake oven, comprising: a source of convection heat; a first pizza stone plate located above said source of heat for receiving an item to be baked; a second pizza stone plate located above said first pizza stone plate: and a housing enclosing said first and second pizza stone plates and a bake oven chamber between said first and second pizza stone plates having an open front end during baking creating a draft directing convection heated air upwardly from said source of heat against said first and second pizza stone plates and between said first and second pizza stone plates over an item to be baked on said first pizza stone plate and through said open front end of said housing and a baffle opposite said open front end of said bake oven chamber angled upwardly from adjacent a back wall of said bake oven chamber toward said second pizza stone plate directing heated convection air against said second pizza stone plate, heating said second pizza stone plate, said heated convection air then directed over an item on said first pizza stone plate and between said first and second pizza stone plates through said open front end.”

Bert’s MPO has neither an “open front end” nor a “baffle opposite said open front end of said bake oven chamber angled upwardly from adjacent a back wall.” And, I don’t see any baffle in the Blackstone diagram in the link to the manual that Chau posted either.

Quote

As far as Willard's present and future legal actions... I don't have a crystal ball, and the vast majority of members here will not be impacted whatever he chooses to do, but there is at least one member here who's future relies a great deal on Willard's level of litigiousness- Bert. While Bert has taken comments relating to potential patent violation to heart and worked on making his device more unique, I think he understands the potential legal threat that Willard represents.

Willard is free to take whatever actions he sees fit, however, I don’t see where Bert has much exposure. IMO, the MPO is substantially and meaningfully different. The idea of using a grill to heat a pizza oven or of having a thermal mass above and below a pizza is hardly novel and that’s pretty much where the similarity ends. Of course, a judge could always see things differently.

Quote

There's a lot we don't know about Willard and his past actions and intentions, but his lack of visible action tells us quite a bit. With the sheer number of companies that are mimicking his devices, one would think that, if he had taken action against one of them, he would have done so in a very public manner as to dissuade the other imitators.

You do realize it’s a little more complicated than just showing up at court and claiming victory, right?

Logged

"We make great pizza, with sourdough when we can, commercial yeast when we must, but always great pizza."Craig's Neapolitan Garage

My first pizza in the blackstone will have carmelina tomatoes, vermont smoked pepperoni and belgioioso mozza. A biga will be used in the dough as well as a blend of bread and ap flour. My process is patented so I can’t say much more than that right now.

scott123

Just because two things look very similar doesn’t not automatically mean infringement.

Are we looking at the same ovens? They don't look similar in the least. One's enclosed in stainless steel and the other has panels/covers in aluminum and painted steel. I'm not looking at the aesthetics, and, if you look at the patent, Willard wisely avoids all aesthetic considerations as well. Both the patent and I are strictly concerned with the thermodynamics- how the heat flows through the oven and how, in turn, that bakes the pizza. If you read through the patent (and I've read through it about 6 times now), you'll see that Willard is crystal clear about the journey of hot air through his device-how every element manipulates heat flow. The heat goes around the deflected bottom stone, up and across the top stone and then out the front. The 2stone magic- and, it's all in the patent, comes from

1. A low second stone dome with thermal mass2. A bottom heat source that is deflected/directed up and across the dome

Before the 2stone, there was no device with 2 stones with only a handful of inches between them and directed circulating air. This is it's uniqueness, it's advantage. It's why it bakes more balanced pizzas than a single stone in a bottom heat setting- and it's why Willard went to such lengths to describe the direction of the heat as it flows through the oven.

Re; the 'baffle.' If you look closely at the patent diagram, the 'baffle' is just a lip that the stone sits on,

Quote

directing heated convection air against said second pizza stone plate

The lip on the 'heat shield' (see below) in the Blackstone serves the same function. While the MightyPizzaOven doesn't have this lip, the stone's flush position against the wall serves the identical purpose of forcing the heated air between the top and bottom stone and out the front.

Re; the 'open front end,' I could don my mischievous lawyer cap and say something along the lines of "Well, Bert's chimney is technically an 'opening' and it's on the front end of the device," but the illustrations don't reveal anything in the way of a chimney, so I won't be that slippery. I will though, quote back the words you quoted me, with some bold tags of my own

Quote

having an open front end during baking creating a draft directing convection heated air upwardly from said source of heat against said first and second pizza stone

Could there be a better way of describing Bert's chimney? We're seeing the front opening in two slightly different places, but the function these openings perform is identical. The only real difference is that Bert's chimney performs this task better- and improvements to an invention are not unique inventions themselves- the original has to be referenced in the improved version's patent and licensing must be acquired.

I'm not necessarily saying that Bert should have his lawyer's number on speed dial. I do think he needs to be aware of the thermodynamic similarities of these two devices and to strive towards unique approaches as he moves forward. The Blackstone, though, is a downright clone. I've gone through the patent with a fine toothed comb and not only did I not find any discrepancies, there were some freakishly odd similarities such as an aluminum cap on the top stone. There's no chance in heck that's just a coincidence. If I had any question about the theft of Willard's ideas before, now that I've read this, I have absolutely no doubt. Blackstone built their oven using Willard's oven (either an oven they purchased or the patent) as a guide.

scott123

If two devices are the same they should have the same performance. Can 2stone grill bake pizza using chafing fuel, gas stove top or on the grill with two burners?

Yes. That's the strength of the small vertical channel and the carefully directed hot air flowing between two stones. You've improved on the 2stone, but I'm not entirely certain that your improvements qualify your device to be entirely unique- especially when Willard's patent lays out pretty broad thermodynamic principles.

If I'm not mistaken, Bert's top stone is square and the height is adjustable. I don't think Williard's top stone is adjustable. That changes heat thermodynamics enough to make it a different oven. Plus MPO has an adjustable vent and is closed in the front. Heat has to travel over the pizza and then up instead of out the front. You can argue that the path of heat travel is different as well.

Could there be a better way of describing Bert's chimney? We're seeing the front opening in two slightly different places, but the function these openings perform is identical. The only real difference is that Bert's chimney performs this task better- and improvements to an invention are not unique inventions themselves- the original has to be referenced in the improved version's patent and licensing must be acquired.

So, if Bert decided to move his chimney from the front to the center-top or even top-back and channel that hot air from the inside front over the top surface of the top stone (space between top stone and top of box), he would be free and clear? Isn't that how Craig's Acunto vents? All Bert would have to do is create a sub-ceiling to his box (and of course figure out the airflow/restrictions etc). Or, is it, just because the airflow is directed toward the front first, that's what matters? We need a patent attorney who loves to make pizza!